Report this post

What you just described is a crappy F2P game which doesn't have any emergent player driven economy and is as bad as a gear treadmill/static themepark P2P game.

My strong advice: Go out there and play some F2P games without paying a dime for em, see how far you get, what sort of people you meet, etc,etc. You might just be surprised by what you find if you give it a chance (I will freely admit you will find games who will play exactly like you said but there are gems out there).

except I have.

I've played Aion and I've played LOTRO.

Since I don't believe in getting something for nothing I usually look for something to buy if I'm enjoying myself.

So go ahead, if there are gems out there other than Aion and Lotro that you think are worth it I will gladly look into them. But be forwarned I've tried just about every game that's out there. What do I see? The same thing that I've described.

Tried Age of Conan,

Currently playing Tera, log into Vanguard from time to time, currently playing The Secret world and I log into Guild Wars 2 from time to time though that is a buy to play game so it functions "a little" differently.

Of course played some of the crappy asian games like perfect world or Shaiya.

edit: ok just saw your list. Really? Really?

League of Legends (I was told by a coworker that I would not like this game because of the community and my feeling on commnity. Not even interested in this type of game play and this is not an mmo)

World of Tanks (don't care about tanks)

World of Warplanes (dont' care about warplanes)

Star Trek Online (past experience does not count, reroll a fed toon and get cracking) (this is one I played prior to f2p and it didn't hook me, especially because they made the combat easier than launch)

Wurm Online (looked at it not interested.

Age of Wushu (grindy as fuck but still fair) grinds don't bother me, this one is one I've considered but the jury is out on whether one needs to buy things to be competitive)

Firefall (if you want I got some invites to spare) (don't care, don't like pseudo sci-fi or at least I won't stick with sci-fi. I will watch it though.)

Navyfield 1 (not interested in "real" war like the other tanks/warplanes games)

EVE-Online (this is the game I should like but for my taste I think it would tale alot of my time to get isk when I really hate making money in these games. Making money to buy plex to play free isn't my idea of fun. I don't care about paying a sub so for all intents and purposes this is a sub game)

Entropia Universe (lol no sorry. I looked into this game, not to my taste). And from what I can see it is about spending money to be competitive).

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by twrule

I'm sorry, but your analogy to the Cello teacher is flawed. Of course a teacher would rather have a small handful of dedicated students - but in an mmo, developers (and players) do want more traffic, even if a good portion of it is 'transient'. Players want to feel like they are in a populated world, and devs want publicity and potential direct income from those players. And since you'll have both the dedicated tight-knit community and the transient population anyway, the fact that p2p keeps transients down is no coherent argument for those who seek a tight-knit community to want a p2p game.

Thta's true it is flawed but the thrust of that and my point was "engaged and serious people will pay for quality and be very invested in what they pay for".

Of course if I can have a house without paying money or a car or eat out every night then I'd take advantage of that. Of course if I can play a game for free why wouldn't I? But the reality is that developers aren't doing this out of the goodness of their heart, they need money.

I do agree that it's up to the developers or game companies to be mindful of how they work the monitization of the game.

But the reality is that they want, need, people to buy things. So they throw in some stuff that they hope is going to lure people to spend a few bucks. This is B.S. Look at Aion, not making the bucks. And it's a decent game. One of the few games that I think is even worth a sub.

Instead, maybe developers they can actually work on a game that players want to play and are willing to pay their sub because they see value. But developers have been short on value lately.

What f2p has done is to create a weird sort of pyramid scheme. people come in, some will pay a bit here and there and they will leave and the cycle continues.

And it's true, people who don't pay become the "content" for the paying players. Some might be serious about the game, some might just be passing through but in the end it becomes a diluting of the community where one has to actually search out for the players who are invested in the game.

I've seen it in LOTRO and the same with Aion. I used to know people in both games. now if I meet someone in either game they are usually not there when I come back. It's a constant adding and deleting to my friend list.

I'd rather have a small dedicated community but sadly developers need more and more money to fund these games.

I understand that but there is a noticiable difference between the game communities of my early years of these games and the large transient communities that have become the norm with f2p games.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

So basically the OP is on about 400+ f2p games have more players and made more money than a couple handsfull of P2P games...um...congrats?

“If MMORPG players were around when God said, "Let their be light" they'd have called the light gay, and plunged the universe back into darkness by squatting their nutsacks over it.”-Luke McKinney, The 7 Biggest Dick Moves in the History of Online Gaming

"In the end, SWG may have been more potential and promise than fulfilled expectation. But I’d rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."-Raph Koster

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

This so called satistic tries to suggest that the F2P market is bigger and more successful. Well, thats actually complete rubbish. Of cause there are more players on F2P games but that has nothing to do with success or failure. Both models are equally successful in terms of money made.

What you have to look at is the REAL numbers in terms of MONEY made from games in both revenue models.

In 2012 the US had roughly 50 Million players of which 23 million payed in some form, be it monthly fees or item shops. The top countries had a total revenue of $3.1 billion for P2P and $3.4 billion for F2P. This is 50% of the global market.

"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012."

"So, yes, it would appear that F2P may be a viable revenue model, partly because of the large number of gamers it attracts. But traffic alone is not a definitive measure of success. Overall spending may follow a very different trend depending on a game’s life cycle, player base and genre.

The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue. The tricky part lies in how to capture and replicate this success."

So the news is that 'F2P' apparently fleeces the consumer base for more cash than a sub... is this news? Remind me why paying more for less as consumers, for a worst user experience overall, is something to be celebrated again? It seems to me the only people that should be cheering this kind of apparent info are the investors and shareholders. There is nothing to suggest here that the sub isn't profitable, only that cash shops are maybe *more* profitable (which we kind of knew).

The questions every gamer should be asking themselves though is at who's expense, and at what real cost?

This all aside... I would be interested though in knowing how much providing a service for those '6 times' as many users actually works out in terms of profit... what does 'made more' mean? Is that gross? It's all very vague and murky without paying for the actual report.

The quotes used here by the OP also seem to be taken from the F2P market at large, and not just MMORPGs, meaning that games like Farmville etc have been included.

They also use the term 'revenue estimates', leading me to question their hard numbers and who openly participates in their data collection. Their phrasing leads me to believe they make guesses with regards to what isn't publically available.

To be honest, we would really need to see the actual reports they are selling to talk about this in any real sense in regards to MMORPGs. Anyone willing to pony up and repost it here? :P

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by taus01

This so called satistic tries to suggest that the F2P market is bigger and more successful. Well, thats actually complete rubbish. Of cause there are more players on F2P games but that has nothing to do with success or failure. Both models are equally successful in terms of money made.

What you have to look at is the REAL numbers in terms of MONEY made from games in both revenue models.

In 2012 the US had roughly 50 Million players of which 23 million payed in some form, be it monthly fees or item shops. The top countries had a total revenue of $3.1 billion for P2P and $3.4 billion for F2P. This is 50% of the global market.

The F2P market IS bigger. And it appears to be slightly more successful from a revenue standpoint based on the information you provided. And it's rate of growth has been much faster than P2P games which are actually in decline.

I mean, I'm not sure why you would call it complete rubbish when the stuff you linked only helps support that F2P makes slightly more than P2P.

+ say what you want. B2P or P2P communities are 1000x better than ANY F2P games. They dont last /stick with the games, they are not loyal and most of these F2P players are just looking for FREE fun, they like to troll, etc.

I couldnt help but read hearing Glenn Becks voice...

“I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by taus01

This so called satistic tries to suggest that the F2P market is bigger and more successful. Well, thats actually complete rubbish. Of cause there are more players on F2P games but that has nothing to do with success or failure. Both models are equally successful in terms of money made.

What you have to look at is the REAL numbers in terms of MONEY made from games in both revenue models.

In 2012 the US had roughly 50 Million players of which 23 million payed in some form, be it monthly fees or item shops. The top countries had a total revenue of $3.1 billion for P2P and $3.4 billion for F2P. This is 50% of the global market.

About those facts, how much of the P2P market was World of Warcraft...oh yeah, turns out only a few P2P games are making money, turning to F2P and making MORE of it...which will turn a larger portion of that market share even higher for F2P.

Remove SWTOR, TSW and TERA from the P2P field for last year, games that are now F2P. P2P is losing ground just like it has been for 5 straight years.

“I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson

Though having a purchase game with a microtransaction cash shop (no 15$ for mounts, like 6 would be great) would work a LOT better.

Which P2P game is quality to you?

ATM none of them.

AA looks like it will have enough quality to have both cashshop and subscription.

UO, EQ, EQII, WoW, TERA, on release all those games had enough quality to be P2P.

I might be misunderstanding what you were trying to say with your first post. It looked like you were saying that 6/7 people don't want to pay for quality. But here you are saying that there are zero games in existence that justify a subscription.

Wouldn't that mean that 1/7 people are currently getting ripped off because they are paying a sub for a game that is of low quality? The other 6/7 actually want to get a solid deal on what is being offered.

But then then you go on about Archeage, a game that has not been released, to try to explain that there is indeed only one game in the universe that will be worth a sub (plus a cash shop, no less). I just don't see it. Maybe it does ok, but I expect another example of P2P gone F2P in 6 months. It just keeps happening over and over again.

I mean, where are all these higher quality P2P games? WoW and EVE maybe, but after that? Nothing. You don't get quality for a sub. That's just a myth. You get the same or better quality from F2P right now.

I also don't buy into the "better community" argument. The biggest asshats I've ever met were in WoW and EVE. And I love both of those games. But certainly the sub did not reduce the rate of asshats.